Post navigation

2 thoughts on “OK – Britain is back on my list…”

After reading the piece linked, the Brits had it wrong in most cases, as well as being correct in one: The Declaration, was, in fact, “illegal” according to British law. In fact, the Founders knew they would be tried for High Treason if they lost.

So, on that count, the Brits were correct; the Unanimous Declaration was 'illegal', just as if a State today seceded from the union with a declaration similiar to the 1776 version, it would be 'illegal' under the laws of the United States and would most likely be misclassified as 'rebellion' or 'insurrection', which both, by definition are fights that lead to civil war in order to dominate the existing power, where secession, or declaring independence, is more like a divorce. One spouse chooses to live elsewhere under other rules of life, not dominate the one he or she chooses to divorce.

Now taking into account Natural Law, and God's law, both the Unanimous Declaraion and the imaginary declaration in the scenario above are entirely 'lawful' (yup, here we are again!) because both support Natural Law or the law put in force, as Jefferson wrote, by “Nature's God” in the inalienable, inherent rights of mankind to have the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, to mention just a few.

Unsurprisingly, the Brits, according to the piece, stated that the 'main point' of the Unanimous Declaration, “taxation without representation,” was not enough to justify secession, and they used Lincoln's War of Aggression as evidence. Wrong on both counts. Taxation without representation, I believe (I'd have to look it up to count) was about the 17th offense listed. There were 16 other offenses the King committed against the colonies that took precedence over taxation without representation. Personally, I think the taxation issue was basically 'icing on the cake' in comparison to the other offenses.

Lincoln's war, fought as a total 'scorched earth' war to keep the Union together at all costs even if Lincoln had to use something he didn't believe in, according to Library of Congress records, namely, emancipation, as a tactic to weaken the South, was fought to keep forge a single nation out of a heretofore confederation of nation states; whereas the Brits fought to subdue rebellious 'subjects'.

As for the Brits enjoining a debate with American lawyers on negating the legitimacy of our Unanimous Declaration, I'd say that question was answered in 1783 when Britain recognized the independence of the United States.

Thank you, Trainer. As usual, insightful and educated while grounded in common sense.

What tickles my deepest synapses is…why bring this up now?

I leave room for coincidences in life, but when it comes to Banksters and Politicians, I rarely permit the latitude. Who is behind this piece of discussion, why, what is their end game…

Sure, it may just be that the writer was having a slow day and plucked the topic out of some old pet-peeve from his schoolboy days.

But what if (and I honestly do not want to sound conspiratorial here), but what if someone in power today wants to try to undermine the very moral existence of the republic, as one more reason America is evil and must be destroyed?

Of course, all of us would dismiss any such argument out of hand, and we'd fill our hands to secure the point if needed.

But I think the world is filled with people who want to undermine our credibility, even our right to exist, if they can plant those seeds…